On segunda-feira, 4 de novembro de 2013 17:03:58, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > On 11/04/2013 04:49 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On segunda-feira, 4 de novembro de 2013 17:16:36, Jussi Laako wrote: > >> I meant it is obsolete from glib codebase point of view in a way that > >> glib doesn't depend on it and offers a built-in alternative. And > >> deprecated for glib-based applications. > > > > That's a very narrow point of view. It doesn't include: > > * EFL-based applications, whose binding is based on libdbus-1 > > * Qt-based applications, whose binding is also based on libdbus-1 > > * older glib-based applications that use dbus-glib and haven't been > > ported > > > > * most system daemons, which are bindingless > > This is the thing that worries me most with respect to dbus-to-kdbus > migration. There are "bindingless" daemons, there are things like > dbus-java which implement everything on their own.
I thought of writing about dbus-java, but I excluded it for two reasons: first, because it's hardly ever used on Linux distributions in general; second, because it already has the marshalling and transport code, so porting it to kdbus is actually not that difficult. The same applies to the NDesk C# implementation. There are also a couple of other obscure bindings to other languages, which are either using libdbus-1 or they're implementing the protocol by themselves. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
